Australia, July 25 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 25:

1. The plaintiff was born in 2016. In December 2017, and January 2018, the plaintiff was brought to the defendant hospital by her mother for treatment. In these proceedings the plaintiff, who sues by her mother and tutor, alleges that the treatment she received was negligent. The negligence includes the alleged misinterpretation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which had been performed upon the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff had presented to the hospital displaying a change in her ability to walk after an episode of high fever.

3. There are cross-claims filed by the defendant against the radiology company which performed the MRI on behalf of the defendant and by the radiology company back against the defendant.

4. The parties made a number of efforts to resolve the case which were ultimately successful on 1 May 2025. This led to the matter coming before me today for approval of the settlement pursuant to s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Approval depends on whether or not the settlement is in the best interests of the plaintiff.

5. The proposed consent orders are silent on the cross claims. However, I am satisfied that there is good reason for that position to have been taken.

6. The application for approval is supported by an affidavit of Mr William Madden dated 20 June 2025, and an affidavit of Ms Kate Biffin dated 23 June 2025. Mr Madden is the plaintiff's solicitor. Ms Biffin is the plaintiff's litigation tutor and also her mother.

7. I have been provided with a confidential memorandum of advice prepared by senior counsel (Mr Richard O'Keefe SC) and junior counsel (Ms Katharine Young).

8. All of Mr Madden, Mr O'Keefe SC and Ms Young recommend approval of the settlement.

9. The defendant has admitted that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiff but has denied negligence. The essential issue on negligence seems to depend on what was the correct diagnosis of the plaintiff when she presented to the hospital; was she suffering from acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) or transverse myelitis (TM) or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease (MOGAD).

10. The plaintiff's position is that the correct diagnosis was TM.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197a4feb3104a255c685db25)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.